Someone once said to me to not get confused between things being taken away from you and YOU losing the right to do them. The first is something that happens spontanously and randomly to you while the latter is something YOU do to cause an action. I believe Ben Bernake (And Tim Geithner) have LOST their rights in their jobs. Nothing has been taken away from them. This editorial will discuss Ben Bernake and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Ben and the Fed have shown themselves to be in the pocket of the big banks. They have shown they are far more interested in protecting the interests of Goldman Sachs than they are are of the average American. Ben has shown that the system is essentially rigged: Heads I (Big banks) win, Tails You (Individual) lose. Ben therefore has lost his right to be independent; he has lost his right to the faith and confidence of the American people and Congress is appropriately doing something about it.
In the New York Times it discusses Congress' move to strip the Fed of the powers to regulate products like "Mortgages and credit cards". Bernake, as you would assume, is against this and is using the power of the editorial to state his case. As you would expect, Bernake is essentially saying the entire Western Civilization will collapse if this is passed. But, I say a few things:
- Didn't it essentially collapse when Ben and his predecessor had control of the regulations? Wasn't it the American public, the people who essentially were being screwed by this system, who had to pay to fix the system that was screwing them? Heads I win, Tails you lose.
- Does Ben really think the Fed did a good job in regulating this stuff? Or, is his argument more of the "We know we screwed up but it will never happen again"?
In the
Washington Post today, Ben Bernake defends their role and their need to be the bank oversight group. While he may have some points the key is who is the Fed there to protect? In the new legislation it is clear the "constituent" of the regulatory body will be the American citizen. In the Fed the way it is organized now (and it appears into the future) the constituent is clearly the banks themselves.
In fact, the Federal Reserve of New York has a unique relationship with those who it governs/regulates. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a unique bank as it is where a lot of the Government regulators come from (Tim Geithner was the President and CEO of the New York Federal Reserve Bank during the economic meltdown of 2008).
Let us look and see who is on the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve of New York. They are:
- Richard Carrion - Chairman of Banc popula de Puerto Rico
- Charles Wait - Chairman of The Adirondack Trust Company
- Jamie Dimon - Chairman of JPMorgan Chase (Wow, such a surprise).
- Jeff Immelt - Chairman of GE (Essentially a very large bank)
- Jeff Kindler - Chairman of Pfizer
- James Tisch - Chairman of Loewe's Company
- There are three others who are "appointed to serve the interests of the Public" one is an academic, one is a union rep and one is in charge of something local to NY
By the way, the second three (Immelt, Kindler and Tisch ) are elected to represent the public. But, of course, that is impossible as they have a fiduciary responsibility, very specifically, to represent their own company in anything and everything they do. Do you really think, when in conflict, Immelt will side with the Public against General Electric's interests? Do you really think Immelt is doing anything on this board other than representing GE's interests? If he is then he is violating his responsibility to the GE shareholder.
My point is simple: This is essentially a corrupt organization which serves the New York Banks as its master. Those who hire the President of the New York Fed are in fact the people the President is supposed to be regulating. It is impossible to work for two different masters. This must be changed and the Congress is right to begin working this change.
Recent Comments